Showing posts with label mind control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mind control. Show all posts

Thursday, November 22, 2007

The $435 Mind Control Device

When I received five e-mails to check out the MC Square—a hand held device that's said to relieve stress, improve memory, and enhance concentration through light and sound—I knew I couldn't pass the opportunity up. (My memory is horrible!) Plus, 1.5 million units have already been sold in Korea, so it's gotta be legit, right? And for the first time starting today, it's available in the U.S.

Dragging PCMag.com assistant editor Corinne Iozzio with me to the W Hotel in Times Square, we were presented with a device that looked like a sleek MP3 player connected to earbuds and goggles.

Developed by Daeyang E&C, the MC Square features six program modes with natural sounds like rain drops to soothe and relax your mind. With everyone in the stuffy room watching us, we both put the ear buds and goggles on. We turned on the player and began to see red lights flashing at our eyes.

We were told to close our eyes and listen to the sounds of the ocean in the background. The combination of light and sound, an audio-visual stimulation (AVS), is known to cause "significant changes in EEG patterns and cerebral synchronization." But why the flashing red LEDs? They're "bright, inexpensive, and blood vessels in the eyelids pass red/orange light most efficiently."

Korean students found that after regularly using the MC Square for 15 minutes a day it improved their study skills. One such student said that he was able to memorize vocabulary words in just 10 minutes after using the device, as opposed to more than half an hour. That's a significant difference!

The MC Square isn't just a stress-reducing device. It's also an MP3 player with 512MB of on board flash memory and a mini SD card, as well as a digital voice recorder (30-hour capacity) and image and text viewer with a color OLED screen. The player is very portable, too, at just 0.6-inches thick.

We're expecting to get a unit in-house, because we just have to see for ourselves if this wacky device works.

To purchase the MC Square with earbuds and goggles, it sells for $435.89 at Amazon.com.

Saturday, October 6, 2007

The Future of Mind Control Weapons

Last year I made a visit to a Russian mind control lab Moscow. No, really, that's what it was, or at least supposed be. It was, needless to say, an interesting experience, but not necessarily something I knew what do with, so I just filed it away in my office under "Russian mind control."

Imagine how surprised I was to read one morning that the Department of Homeland Security was preparing to issue a sole source contract to test some of the technology developed there. My story today in Wired News traces how this unusual research from Russia caught the eye of U.S. officials:

MOSCOW -- The future of U.S. anti-terrorism technology could lie near the end of a Moscow subway line in a circular dungeon-like room with a single door and no windows. Here, at the Psycho technology Research Institute, human subjects submit to experiments aimed at manipulating their subconscious minds.

Elena Rusalkina, the silver-haired woman who runs the institute, gestured to the center of the claustrophobic room, where what looked like a dentist's chair sits in front of a glowing computer monitor. "We've had volunteers, a lot of them," she said, the thick concrete walls muffling the noise from the college campus outside. "We worked out a program with (a psychiatric facility) to study criminals. There's no way to falsify the results. There's no subjectivism."

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has gone to many strange places in its search for ways to identify terrorists before they attack, but perhaps none stranger than this lab on the outskirts of Russia's capital. The institute has for years served as the center of an obscure field of human behavior study -- dubbed psychoecology -- that traces it roots back to Soviet-era mind control research.

What's gotten DHS' attention is the institutes's work on a system called Semantic Stimuli Response Measurements Technology, or SSRM Tek, a software-based mind reader that supposedly tests a subject's involuntary response to subliminal messages.

SSRM Tek is presented to a subject as an innocent computer game that flashes subliminal images across the screen -- like pictures of Osama bin Laden or the World Trade Center. The "player" -- a traveler at an airport screening line, for example -- presses a button in response to the images, without consciously registering what he or she is looking at. The terrorist's response to the scrambled image involuntarily differs from the innocent person's, according to the theory.

Gear for testing MindReader 2.0 software hangs on a wall at the Psycho technology Research Institute in Moscow. Marketed in North America as SSRM Tek, the technology will soon be tested for airport screening by a U.S. company under contract to the Department of Homeland Security.

"If it's a clean result, the passengers are allowed through," said Rusalkina, during a reporter's visit last year. "If there's something there, that person will need to go through extra checks."

Rusalkina markets the technology as a program called Mindreader 2.0. To sell Mindreader to the West, she's teamed up with a Canadian firm, which is now working with a U.S. defense contractor called SRS Technologies. This May, DHS announced plans to award a sole-source contract to conduct the first U.S.-government sponsored testing of SSRM Tek.

The contract is a small victory for the Psychotechnology Research Institute and its leaders, who have struggled for years to be accepted in the West. It also illustrates how the search for counter-terrorism technology has led the U.S. government into unconventional -- and some would say unsound -- science.

The Father of Psychtronic Weapons

All of the technology at the institute is based on the work of Rusalkina's late husband, Igor Smirnov, a controversial Russian scientist whose incredible tales of mind control attracted frequent press attention before his death several years ago.

Smirnov was a Rasputin-like character often portrayed in the media as having almost mystical powers of persuasion. Today, first-time visitors to the institute -- housed in a drab concrete building at the Peoples Friendship University of Russia -- are asked to watch a half-hour television program dedicated to Smirnov, who is called the father of "psychotronic weapons," the Russian term for mind control weapons. Bearded and confident, Smirnov in the video explains how subliminal sounds could alter a person's behavior. To the untrained ear, the demonstration sounds like squealing pigs.

According to Rusalkina, the Soviet military enlisted Smirnov's psychotechnology during the Soviet Union's bloody war in Afghanistan in the 1980s. "It was used for combating the Mujahideen, and also for treating post-traumatic stress syndrome" in Russian soldiers, she says.

In the United States, talk of mind control typically evokes visions of tinfoil hats. But the idea of psychotronic weapons enjoys some respectability in Russia. In the late 1990s, Vladimir Lopatin, then a member of the Duma, Russia's parliament, pushed to restrict mind control weapons, a move that was taken seriously in Russia but elicited some curious mentions in the Western press. In an interview in Moscow, Lopatin, who has since left the Duma, cited Smirnov's work as proof that such weaponry is real.

"It's financed and used not only by the medical community, but also by individual and criminal groups," Lopatin said. Terrorists might also get hold of such weapons, he added.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, Smirnov moved from military research into treating patients with mental problems and drug addiction, setting up shop at the college. Most of the lab's research is focused on what it calls "psychocorrection" -- the use of subliminal messages to bend a subject's will, and even modify a person's personality without their knowledge.

The slow migration of Smirnov's technology to the United States began in 1991, at a KGB-sponsored conference in Moscow intended to market once-secret Soviet technology to the world. Smirnov's claims of mind control piqued the interest of Chris and Janet Morris -- former science-fiction writers turned Pentagon consultants who are now widely credited as founders of the Pentagon's "non-lethal" weapons concept.

In an interview last year, Chris Morris recalled being intrigued by Smirnov -- so much so that he accompanied the researcher to his lab and allowed Smirnov to wire his head up to an electroencephalograph, or EEG. Normally used by scientists to measure brain states, Smirnov peered into Morris's EEG tracings and divined the secrets of his subconscious, right down to intimate details like Morris' dislike of his own first name.

The underlying premise of the technology is that terrorists would recognize a scrambled terrorist image like this one without even realizing it, and would be betrayed by their subconscious reaction to the picture.

"I said, 'gee, the guys back at home have got to see this,'" Morris recalled.

The Morrises shopped the technology around to a few military agencies, but found no one willing to put money into it. However, in 1993 Smirnov rose to brief fame in the United States when the FBI consulted with him in hope of ending the standoff in Waco with cult leader David Koresh. Smirnov proposed blasting scrambled sound -- the pig squeals again -- over loudspeakers to persuade Koresh to surrender.

But the FBI was put off by Smirnov's cavalier response to questions. When officials asked what would happen if the subliminal signals didn't work, Smirnov replied that Koresh's followers might slit each other's throats, Morris recounted. The FBI took a pass, and Smirnov returned to Moscow with his mind control technology.

"With Smirnov, the FBI was either demanding a yes or a no, and therefore our methods weren't put to use, unfortunately," Rusalkina said, taking a drag on her cigarette.

Smirnov died in November 2004, leaving the widowed Rusalkina -- his long-time collaborator -- to run the institute. Portraits of Smirnov cover Rusalkina's desk, and his former office is like a shrine, the walls lined with his once-secret patents, his awards from the Soviet government, and a calendar from the KGB's cryptographic section.

Despite Smirnov's death, Rusalkina predicts an "arms race" in psychotronic weapons. Such weapons, she asserts, are far more dangerous than nuclear weapons.

She pointed, for example, to a spate of Russian news reports about "zombies" -- innocent people whose memories had been allegedly wiped out by mind control weapons. She also claimed that Russian special forces contacted the institute during the 2003 Moscow theater siege, in which several hundred people were held hostage by Chechen militants.

"We could have stabilized the situation in the concert hall, and the terrorists would have called the whole thing off," she said. "And naturally, you could have avoided all the casualties, and you could have put the terrorists on trial. But the Alfa Group" -- the Russian equivalent of Delta Force -- "decided to go with an old method that had already been tested before."

The Russians used a narcotic gas to subdue the attackers and their captives, which led to the asphyxiation death of many of the hostages.

These days, Rusalkina explained, the institute uses its psychotechnology to treat alcoholics and drug addicts. During the interview, several patients -- gaunt young men who appeared wasted from illness -- waited in the hallway.

But the U.S. war on terror and the millions of dollars set aside for homeland security research is offering Smirnov a chance at posthumous respectability in the West.

Smirnov's technology reappeared on the U.S. government's radar screen through Northam Psychotechnologies, a Canadian company that serves as North American distributor for the Psychotechnology Research Institute. About three years ago, Northam Psychotechnologies began seeking out U.S. partners to help it crack the DHS market. For companies claiming innovative technologies, the past few years have provided bountiful opportunities. In fiscal year 2007, DHS allocated $973 million for science and technology and recently announced Project Hostile Intent, which is designed to develop technologies to detect people with malicious intentions.

One California-based defense contractor, DownRange G2 Solutions, expressed interest in SSRM Tek, but became skeptical when Northam Psychotechnologies declined to make the software available for testing.

"That raised our suspicion right away," Scott Conn, CEO and president of DownRange, told Wired News. "We weren't prepared to put our good names on the line without due diligence." (When a reporter visited last year, Rusalkina also declined to demonstrate the software, saying it wasn't working that day.)

While Conn said the lack of testing bothered him, the relationship ended when he found out Northam Psychotechnologies went to SRS Technologies, now part of ManTech International Corp.

Semyon Ioffe, the head of Northam Psychotechnologies, who identifies himself as a "brain scientist," declined a phone interview, but answered questions over e-mail. Ioffe said he signed a nondisclosure agreement with Conn, and had "a few informal discussions, after which he disappeared to a different assignment and reappeared after (the) DHS announcement."

As for the science, Ioffe says he has a Ph.D in neurophysiology, and cited Smirnov's Russian-language publications as the basis for SSRM Tek.

However, not everyone is as impressed with Smirnov's technology, including John Alexander, a well-known expert on non-lethal weapons. Alexander was familiar with Smirnov's meetings in Washington during the Waco crisis, and said in an interview last year that there were serious doubts then as now.

"It was the height of the Waco problem, they were grasping at straws," he said of the FBI's fleeting interest. "From what I understand from people who were there, it didn't work very well."

Geoff Schoenbaum, a neuroscientist at the University of Maryland's School of Medicine, said that he was unaware of any scientific work specifically underpinning the technology described in SSRM Tek.

"There's no question your brain is able to perceive things below your ability to consciously express or identify," Schoenbaum said. He noted for example, studies showing that images displayed for milliseconds -- too short for people to perceive consciously -- may influence someone's mood. "That kind of thing is reasonable, and there's good experimental evidence behind it."

The problem, he said, is that there is no science he is aware of that can produce the specificity or sensitivity to pick out a terrorist, let alone influence behavior. "We're still working at the level of how rats learn that light predicts food," he explained. "That's the level of modern neuroscience."

Developments in neuroscience, he noted, are followed closely. "If we could do (what they're talking about), you would know about it," Schoenbaum said. "It wouldn't be a handful of Russian folks in a basement."

In the meantime, the DHS contract is still imminent, according to those involved, although all parties declined to comment on the details, or the size of the award. Rusalkina did not respond to a recent e-mail, but in the interview last year, she confirmed the institute was marketing the technology to the United States for airport screening.

Larry Orloskie, a spokesman for DHS, declined to comment on the contract announcement. "It has not been awarded yet," he replied in an e-mail.

"It would be premature to discuss any details about the pending contract with DHS and I will be happy to do an interview once the contract is in place," Ioffe, of Northam Psychotechnologies, wrote in an e-mail. Mark Root, a spokesman for ManTech, deferred questions to DHS, noting, "They are the customer."

By Sharon Weinberger
Source: Wired News

Monday, October 1, 2007

Does Television Control Your Mind?

The subconscious is powerful. It is aware of every particle and detail around you. But it doesn't know the difference between fact or fiction and acts on all information passing through the conscious mind as fact, and responds to it. So what do you think happens when you watch silly, moron, goofy commercials and television programs? They are training your thought processes.

Hey buddy, I'm talking to you. Yes, you, the guy sitting in front of the television. Turn down the sound a bit, so that you can hear what I am saying. Now, try to concentrate on what I am going to say. I want to talk to you about your favorite pastime. No, it's not baseball or football, although it does have something to do with your interest in spectator sports. I'm talking about what you were just doing: watching television.

Do you have any idea about how much time you spend in front of the television set? According to the latest studies, the average American now spends between five and six hours a day watching television. Let's put that in perspective: that is more time than you spend doing anything else but sleeping or working, if you are lucky enough to still have a job.

That's more time than you spend eating, more time than you spend with your wife alone, more time than with the kids. It's even worse with your children. According to these same studies, young children below school age watch more than eight hours each day. School age children watch a little under eight hours a day. In 1980, the average 20-year-old had watched the equivalent of 14 months of television in his or her brief lifetime. That's 14 months, 24 hours a day.

More recent figures show that the numbers have climbed: the 20-year-old has spent closer to two full years of his or her life in front of the television set. At the same time, the researchers have noted a disturbing phenomena. It seems that we Americans are getting progressively more stupid. They note a decline in reading and comprehension levels in all age groups tested. Americans read less and understand what they read less than they did 10 years ago, less than they have at any time since research began to study such things.

As for writing skills, Americans are, in general, unable to write more than a few simple sentences. We are among the least literate people on this planet, and we're getting worse. It's the change--the constant trendline downward--that interests these researchers. More than one study has correlated this increasing stupidity of our population to the amount of television they watch.

Interestingly, the studies found that it doesn't matter what people watch, whether it's "The Simpsons" or "McNeil/Lehrer," or "Murphy Brown" or "Nightline": the more television you watch, the less literate, the more stupid you are. The growth in television watching had surprised some of the researchers. Back a decade ago, they were predicting that television watching would level off and might actually decline. It had reached an absolute saturation point.

They were right for so-called network television; figures show a steady dropoff of viewership. But that drop is more than made up for by the growth of cable television, with its smorgasbord of channels, one for almost every perversion. Especially in urban and suburban areas, Americans are hard-wired to more than 100 different channels that provide them with all news, like CNN, all movies, all comedy, all sports, all weather, all financial news and a liberal dose of straight pornography.

The researchers had also failed to predict the market penetration of first beta and then VHS video recorders; they made it possible to watch one thing and record another for later viewing. They also offered access to movies not available on networks or even cable channels as well as home videos, recorded on your own little camcorder. The proliferation of home video equipment has involved families in video-related activities which are not even considered in the cumulative totals for time Americans spend watching television.

You might not actually realize how much you are watching television. But think for a moment. When you come home, you turn the television on, if it isn't on already. You read the paper with it on, half glancing at what is on the screen, catching a bit of the news, or the plot of a show. You eat with it on, maybe in the background, listening for a score or something that happens to a character in a show you follow.

When something you are interested in, a show or basketball game, is on, the set becomes the center of attention. So your attention to what is on may vary in intensity, but there is almost no point when you are home, and inside, and have the set completely off. Isn't that right? The studies did not break down the periods of time people watched television, according to the intensity of their viewing.

But the point is still made: you compulsively turn the television on and spend a good portion of your waking hours glued to the tube. And the studies also showed that many people can't sleep without the television turned on!

The Television is Brainwashing You

Now, I'm sure you have heard that watching too much television is bad for your health. They put stories like that on the evening news. Bad for your eyes to stare at the screen, they say. Especially bad if you sit too close. Well, I want to make another point.

We've already shown that you are addicted to the tube, watching it between six and eight hour a day. But it is an addiction that brainwashes you. There are two kinds of brainwashing. The one that's called "hard" brainwashing is the type you're most familiar with. You've got a pretty good image of it from some of those old Korean war movies. They take some guy, an American patriot, drag him into a room, torture him, pump him full of drugs, and after a struggle, get him to renounce his country and his beliefs. He usually undergoes a personality change, signified by an ever-present smile and blank stare.

This brainwashing is called hard because its methods are overt. The controlled environment is obvious to the victim; so is the terror. The victim is overwhelmed by a seemingly omnipotent external force, and a feeling of intense isolation is induced. The victim's moral strength is sapped, and slowly he embraces his torturers. It is man's moral strength that informs and orders his power of reason; without it, the mind becomes little more than a recording machine waiting for imprints. No one is saying that you have been a victim of hard brainwashing. But you have been brainwashed, just as effectively as those people in the movies. The blank stare? Did you ever look at what you look like while watching television?

If the angle is right, you might catch your own reflection in the screen. Jaw slightly open, lips relaxed into a smile. The blank stare of a television zombie. This is "soft" brainwashing, even more effective because its victims go about their lives unaware of what is being done to them. Television, with its reach into nearly every American home, creates the basis for the mass brainwashing of citizens, like you.

It works on a principle of tension and release. Create tension, in a controlled environment, increasing the level of stress. Then provide a series of choices that provide release from the tension. As long as the victim believes that the choices presented are the only choices available, even if they are at first glance unacceptable, he will nevertheless, ultimately seek release by choosing one of these unacceptable choices. Under these circumstances, in a brainwashing, controlled environment, such choice-making is not a ``rational'' experience. It does not involve the use of man's creative mental powers; instead man is conditioned, like an animal, to respond to the tension, by seeking release.

The key to the success of this brainwashing process is the regulation of both the tension and the perceived choices. As long as both are controlled, then the range of outcomes is also controlled. The victim is induced to walk down one of several pathways acceptable for his controllers. The brainwashers call the tension-filled environment "social turbulence." The last decades have been full of such social turbulence--economic collapse, regional wars, population disasters, ecological and biological catastrophes. Social turbulence creates crises in perceptions, causing people to lose their bearings.

Adrift and confused, people seek release from the tension, following paths that appear to lead to a simpler, less tension-filled life. There is no time in such a process for rational consideration of complicated problems. Television is the key vehicle for presenting both the tension and the choices. It brings you the images of the tension, and serves up simple answers. Television, in its world of semi-reality, of illusion, of escape from reality, is itself the single most important release from our tension-wracked existence. Eight hours a day, every day, through its programming, you are being programmed.

If you doubt me, think about one important choice that you have made recently that was not in some way influenced by something that you have seen on television. I bet you can't think of one. That's how controlled you are.

Who's Doing It?

But don't take my word for it. Ten years ago we spoke to a man from a think tank called the Futures Group in Connecticut. Hal Becker had spent more than 20 years of his life manipulating the minds of the leaders of our society. Listen to what he said: ``I know the secret of making the average American believe anything I want him to. Just let me control television. Americans are wired into their television sets. Over the last 30 years, they have come to look at their television sets and the images on the screen as reality. You put something on television and it becomes reality. If the world outside the television set contradicts the images, people start changing the world to make it more like the images and sounds of their television. Because its influence is so great, so pervasive, it has become part of our lives. You lose your sense of what is being done to you, but your mind is being shaped and molded.''

``Your mind is being shaped and molded.'' If that doesn't sound like brainwashing, I don't know what is. Becker speaks with the elan of a network of brainwashers who have been programming your lives, especially since the advent of television as a ``mass medium'' in the late 1940s and early 1950s.

This network numbers several tens of thousands worldwide. Occasionally one appears on the nightly news to tell you what you are thinking, by reporting the latest ``opinion polls.'' But for the most part, they work behind the scenes, speaking to themselves and writing papers for their own internal distribution. And though they work for many diverse groups, these brainwashers are united by a common world view and common method. It is the world view of a small elite, whose financial and political power rests in institutions that pass this power on from generation to generation.

They view the common folk like yourself as little better than beasts of burden to be controlled and manipulated by a semi-feudal international oligarchy, whose wealth, power and bloodlines entitle them to rule. One of the oligarchy's institutions for manipulation of populations is located in a suburb of London called Tavistock. The Tavistock Institute for Human Relations, which also has a branch in Sussex, England, is the ``mother'' for much of this extended network, of which Becker is a member. They are the specialists in both hard and soft brainwashing.

The Tavistock Institute is the psychological warfare arm of the British Royal household. The oligarchs behind Tavistock, and similar outfits in the United States and elsewhere, are determined that you should be a television addict, sucking up a daily dose of brainwashing from the ``tube;'' that is how they control you. Like his fellow brainwashers, Becker prides himself in knowing the minds of his victims.

He calls them ``saps.'' Man, he told an interviewer, should be called ``homo the sap.'' ``Soft'' brainwashing by television works through power of suggestion. Television watching creates a state of drugged-like oblivion to outside reality. The mind, its perceptions dulled by habituated viewing, is ready to accept any new illusion of reality as presented on the tube. The mind, in its drugged-like stupor of television watching, is prepared to accept that the images that television {suggests} as reality {are} reality. It will then struggle to form fit a contradictory reality into television image, just as Becker claims. Another Tavistock brainwasher, Fred Emery, who studied television for 25 years, confirms this.

The television signal itself, he found, puts the viewer in this state of drugged-like oblivion. Emery writes: ``Television as a media consists of a constant visual signal of 50 half-frames per second. Our hypotheses regarding this essential nature of the medium itself are:

1) The constant visual stimulus fixates the viewer and causes the habituation of response. The prefrontal and association areas of the cortex are effectively dominated by the signal, the screen.

2) The left cortical hemisphere--the center of visual and analytical calculating processes--is effectively reduced in its functioning to tracking changing images on the screen.

3) Therefore, provided, the viewer keeps looking, he is unlikely to reflect on what he is doing and what he is viewing. That is, he will be aware, but unaware of his awareness....

``In other words, television can be seen partly as the technological analogue of the hypnotist.''

The key to making the brainwashing work is the repetition of suggestion over time. With people watching the tube for 6 to 8 hours a day, there is plenty of time for such repeated suggestion. Some Examples Let's look at an example to make things a bit clearer. Think back about 20 years ago. Think about what you thought about certain issues of the day. Think about those same issues today; notice how you seemed to change your mind about them, to become more tolerant of things you opposed vehemently before.

It's your television watching that changed your mind, or to use Becker's terms, ``shaped your perceptions.''

Twenty years ago, most people thought that the lunacy that is now called environmentalism, the idea that animals and plants should be protected on an equal basis with human life, was screwy. It went against the basic concept of Christian civilization that man is a higher species than and distinct from the animals, and that it is man, by virtue of his being made in the image of the living God, whose life is sacred.

That was 20 years ago. But now, many people, maybe even you, seem to think otherwise; there are even laws that say so. This contrary, anti-human view of man being no more than equal to animals and plants was inserted into our consciousness by the suggestion of television. Environmental lunacy was scripted into network television shows, into televised movies, and into the news. It started slowly, but picked up steam. Environmental spokesmen were increasingly seen in the favorable glow of television.

Those who opposed this view were shown in an unfavorable way. It was done over time, with repetition. If you weren't completely won over, you were made tolerant of the views of environmental lunatics whose statements were morally and scientifically unsound. Let's take a more recent example: the [1991] war against Iraq. That was a war made for television. In fact, it was a war organized through television. Think back a year: How were Americans prepared for the eventual slaughter of Iraqi women and children? Images on the screen: Saddam Hussein, on one side, Hitler on the other.

The images repeated in newscasts, backed up by scenes of alleged atrocities in Kuwait. Then the war itself: the video-game like images of ``smart'' weapons killing Iraqi targets. Finally, the American military commander-in-chief Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf, conducting a final press briefing that was consciously orchestrated to resemble the winning Superbowl coach describing his victory.

Those were the images that overwhelmed our population. Only now, months later, do we find out that the images had nothing to do with reality. The Iraqi ``atrocities'' in Kuwait and elsewhere were exaggerated. Our ``smart'' weapons like the famous Patriot anti-missile system didn't really work.

Oh, and the casualty figures: it seems that we murdered far more women and children than we did soldiers. Hardly a ``glorious victory.'' But while it might have made a difference if people knew this while the war was being planned or in progress, polls show that Americans no longer find the war or any stories about it ``interesting.''

Looking at the question more broadly, where did your children get most of their values, if not from what they saw on television? Parents might counteract the influence of the infernal box, but they could not overcome it. How could they, if they themselves have been brainwashed by the same box and if their children spend more time with it than them? Studies show that most of television programming is geared to a less than 5th grade comprehension level; parents, like you, are themselves being remade in the infantile images of the television screen. All of society becomes more infantile, more easily controllable.

As Emery explains: ``We are proposing that television as a simple constant and repetitive and ambiguous visual stimulus, gradually closes down the central nervous system of man.''} Becker holds a similar view of the effect of television on American's ability to think: "Americans don't really think--they have opinions and feelings. Television creates the opinion and then validates it.''

Nowhere is this clearer than with politics. Television tells Americans what to think about politicians, restricting choices to those acceptable to the oligarchs whose financial power controls networks and major cable channels. It tells people what has been said and what is ``important.'' Everything else is filtered out. You are told who can win and who can't. And few people have the urge to look behind the images in the screen, to seek content and truth in ideas and look for a high quality of leadership.

Such an important matter as choosing a president becomes the same as choosing a box of laundry detergent: a set of possibilities, whose limits are determined, by the images on the screen. You are given the appearance of freedom of choice, but that you have neither freedom nor real choice. That is how the brainwashing works. ``Are they brainwashed by the tube,'' said Becker to the interviewer.``

It is really more than that. I think that people have lost the ability to relate the images of their own lives without television intervening to tell them what it means. That is what we really mean when we say that we have a wired society.'' Turn It Off! That was ten years ago. It has gotten far worse since then.

In coming issues, we will show you the brainwashers' vision of a hell on earth and how television is being used to get us there; we will discuss television programming, revealing how it has helped produce what is called a ``paradigm'' shift in values, creating an immoral society; we will explain how the news is presented and how its presentation has been used to destroy the English language; we will discuss the mass entertainment media, showing who controls it and how; we will deal with America's addiction to spectator sports and show how that too has helped make you passive and stupid; and finally, we will show where we are headed, if we can't break our addiction to the tube.

So, after what I just told you, what do say, buddy? Do you want to stay stupid and let your country go to hell in a basket? Why don't you just walk over to the set and turn it off. That's right, completely off. Go on, you can do it. Now isn't that better? Don't you feel a little better already? You've just taken the first step in deprogramming yourself. It wasn't that hard, was it? Until we speak again, try to keep it off. Now that will be a bit harder.

By L. WolfeSource: JimMarrs.com

Monday, April 30, 2007

What Can Neuroscience Tell Us about Evil?

"I had to do it. What other choice did you give me?"

These words, spoken by Cho Seung-Hui on a video in between the two sets of killings at Virginia Tech last week, raise more questions than answers. What made him believe that such a tragic act was necessary? Was he a psychopath, a man who killed in cold blood or in anger set off by the slightest provocation? Did he embody what most religions would simply classify as "evil"?

Psychiatrists and neuroscientists are making extraordinary advances in understanding the psychopathic or sociopathic mind, a mind that lacks empathy, compassion, fear, or remorse. In some of the most exciting research, advanced brain-imaging techniques are revealing that certain sections of psychopaths' brains seem to be misfiring.

Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), researchers in the United States, Germany, and elsewhere have started taking scans of the brains of psychopaths while the patients view horrific images, such as photographs of bloody stabbings, shootings, or evisceration. When normal people view these images, fMRI scans light up to indicate heavy brain activity in sections of the emotion-generating limbic system, primarily the amygdala, which is believed to generate feelings of empathy. But in psychopathic patients, these sections of the amygdala remain dark, showing greatly reduced activity or none at all. This phenomenon, known as limbic underactivation, may indicate that some of these people lack the ability to generate the basic emotions that keep primitive killer instincts in check.


Other researchers see similar deficits from fMRI scans of the frontal cortex, part of the reasoning center of the brain, which helps regulate impulsive and irrational actions. These researchers say that frontal-deficit syndrome creates a psychopathic inability to rein in overly emotional, impulsive, and violent reactions to the slightest provocation.

James Blair, head of the National Institute of Mental Health's Unit on Affective Cognitive Neuroscience, believes that a dysfunctional amygdala affects the frontal cortex. In just-completed studies of psychopathic brains, to be published late this year or early next, Blair's fMRI scans show that a lack of normal activity in the amygdala is mirrored in the frontal cortex. He believes that the amygdala forwards the wrong signals to the frontal cortex.

Still, some scientists say that this focus on the amygdala is too simplistic. "I'm not sure if the amygdala is the core of the problem," says Joshua Greene, assistant professor of psychology at Harvard University. Greene says that while the amygdala may be "one of the areas compromised," the affected part of the brain might be different in different patients. Greene has not studied psychopathic patients, but he has used fMRI to look at the brains of people as they make moral decisions. He has found that either an emotional center or a reasoning center may play the dominant role, depending on the kind of moral decision being pondered.

Of course, not everyone demonstrating these brain abnormalities ends up a killer. Some individuals with limbic underactivation end up in heroic professions, becoming firefighters, police officers, or fighter pilots, possibly because of a reduced fear response and a need for strong emotional stimuli. One theory is that other triggers, such as severe childhood abuse or neglect, are needed to turn people with already suppressed emotions into cold-blooded killers.

And of course not all killers are psychopaths. Thomas Lewis, a psychiatrist who has extensively studied the research on psychopathy and who specializes in the neurochemistry of depression at the University of California, San Francisco, describes an extraordinarily rare condition in which a nonpsychopathic person can become a "rampage killer." This individual starts out severely depressed, traumatized, and suicidal, a condition that could be caused by anything from genetics to a brain tumor. Then some perceived crisis causes him or her to snap and go on a killing spree before taking his or her own life. "It's kind of like throwing a temper tantrum--only with automatic weapons," says Lewis.

Using neuroscience to understand seemingly evil acts of violence is still in its very early days. Indeed, diagnosis and prediction of killing behavior are far off into the future, if at all possible. But many brain researchers see enormous potential in the new imaging work. "We've always regarded psychopathy as completely untreatable," says Blair. "This could absolutely change that."

Friday, April 27, 2007

FREE REPORT: HOW TO BREAK FREE OF SOCIETY'S CONTROL

I've just uploaded a 30-page review copy of Stuart Goldsmith's Inner Circle Course.

This report includes some hard-hitting information that you need if you want to take the next step upwards in your life.

Stuart teaches that you must break free of society's control if you wan
t to be happy, powerful, and successful.

Be prepared for a wake-up call. This is gutsy, in-your-face stuff, and Stuart doesn't mince words... you have been warned!

After all, what's the point of learning how to make great wealth from some penniless imbecile?

Start learning from a real life multi-millionaire who started out in the gutter and went on to amass a fortune in personal wealth.

I highly recommend Stuart's work and this report is packed with very powerful information.

Don't worry, there are no forms to fill out to get the free report. Simply right-click on the link below and choose "Save As" to download to your desktop.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FREE REPORT

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

Love and Sex and Switchwords

A young man recently asked me if I could recommend any good switchwords for “attracting wonderful women!” and also for high-quality lovemaking. Well, I have certainly used switchwords beneficially on many occasions in this area of my life since first learning the switchwords in 1975, when I was 23. And I can give several suggestions, which of course can be used by either men or women.

Most people seem to assume they cannot just instantly generate love, it has to happen by itself somehow. But though the happen-by-itself emotional kind is very sweet, my experience has been that anyone can generate love at any time in any situation just by intending it so. Using switchwords gives easy access to that.

Generally, of course, I recommend simply silently chanting occasionally the master switchword “TOGETHER“. That’s so profoundly appropriate with a love partner, in all ways. I enthusiastically recommend experimenting with it while doing anything with your lover, including making love. Nothing more is required, basically, in my experience, and it’s so easy, simple, and beneficial. Your mind is probably going to think of something anyway, so you might as well give it something very beneficial and easy to think!

However, if you specifically would like to create an aura and vibration and experience of love with a love partner — or for that matter, with anyone in any situation, not only with a lover — then I suggest silently chanting or occasionally declaring TOGETHER-LOVE or TOGETHER-DIVINE-LOVE.

I have many times in my life used an affirmation I learned from Dr. Catherine Ponder, “I AM A RADIANT CENTER OF DIVINE LOVE” with excellent and reliable results. She recommends that whenever you want to make friends with someone, just silently chant “I AM A RADIANT CENTER OF DIVINE LOVE,” and watch what happens! I’ve many times experienced that that works very well indeed!
Or, that particular affirmation is also excellent for melting anyone who is being hostile or nasty towards you. Dr. Ponder also recommends another more specific powerful and effective affirmation for this type of situation: “LET DIVINE LOVE BE MADE ALIVE IN THEE.” She calls it “shooting them in the back with love!”

By the way, I’ve made it a little practice of mine to occasionally mentally direct that (”LET DIVINE LOVE BE MADE ALIVE IN THEE”) to every “terrorist” on the planet, and I invite anyone else to join me in doing that. In my humble opinion, love is the only real and sustainable solution to terrorism. “War against terrorism,” which is to say “war against war,” occurs to me as a seemingly noble idea which is actually inherently stupid and counterproductive. Gautama Buddha says it best: “Hatred does not cease through hatred at any time. Hatred ceases through love. This is an unalterable law.”

But back to romantic-sexual love: HOLE is the specific switchword for attractiveness.

Certain long combinations of switchwords can also be very useful and enjoyable. However, I think for most people, silently chanting a long switchwords mantra while making love would seem difficult, distracting, and absurd. If you can do it, though, I can promise that your lover will be highly pleased and so will you! ;-)

Another similar shorter switchword combination I recommend which is easier to remember and silently chant, is: TOGETHER-DIVINE-LOVE-HOLE-BLISS.

This is a wonderful mantra to use with a love partner you’re already with. However, if you’re wanting to attract a lover, and you sense that this kind of energy may be appropriate with someone you’ve met, you can try mentally chanting this and see what happens. Of course if you haven’t yet met anyone to try it with, you can always use the switchword REACH (to solve a problem) or even CIRCULATE (to eliminate loneliness)! :-)

By the way, in my experience, using switchwords is never a matter of dominating someone else or attempting to “control” them; you’re just broadcasting a thought vibration and creating a possibility, and anyone else is free to join you in it or not.

You can of course customize and edit these switchwords combinations as you wish; there are over 100 known switchwords to choose from for generating various results and experiences. However, as always, I experience that using just a single word as a creative affirmation, declaration, or mantra is easiest and best. So I again most highly recommend the elegantly simple, all-inclusive, and effective TOGETHER for attracting and being with a lover, as well as for sharing the most optimum life together.

Enjoy! ;-)

Thanks & Peace & Love,
Shunyam Nirav,
Masterworks Unlimited, Inc.



How to Read Minds to Influence the Opposite Sex

I hope you won’t be too disappointed when I tell you that you’ll never read minds like Mel Gibson in “What Women Want.”

However, you can learn how to get a better idea of the general state of mind and receptivity of the person in front of you. And you can subliminally persuade the opposite sex. Lets jump straight to one of the fun ways.

Watch Those Pupils
A persons pupils get bigger when they are aroused, interested and/or receptive. If you look into his or her eyes and see those pupils growing large - it’s looking good for you. Basically big pupils (unless it’s just dark) mean a person likes what they see.

Try this experiment, and you’ll understand how immediate this effect can be. Go right now and look in the mirror at your own eyes. As you look at them, imagine a sexy man or woman you are attracted to - in whatever way would turn you on. You’ll see that your pupils get bigger in just seconds. Actually, if you love to fish, they may get big just thinking about a lake you love. Anything you like to look at can make your pupils bigger.

Now, there are two ways to use this.

1. Mind Reading
For the mind reading part, you can now watch for changing of pupil size to know if someone is interested in you or what you have to say. And yes, shrinking pupils generally do mean the person is not interested. Just be careful to note if light in the persons eyes is causing the shrinking pupils.

In addition to judging the general level of interest and/or receptivity to you, you can use pupil size to go a little
deeper into a person’s mind. For example, during the course of a conversation, you can describe various scenes or delve into different topics, while watching the persons pupils. If their pupils shrank at the mention of skiing, and got huge when you described a beach you like, you can be fairly certain they would like the Bahamas over a ski resort.

The great thing about this little trick is that you can easily test it and refine your technique. Start with a friend whose interests you know already, and watch their pupils as you describe various places or even ideas. See if getting them to visualize, by saying something “Remember how that car of yours looked,” gets a bigger pupil response.

2. Influencing
If you haven’t yet experimented with your own pupils, by watching them in the mirror, go try it now. You’ll find that you can quickly train yourself to change your pupil size at will. Just find a mental image or two that gets them really big, and use these as necessary. Look at a light briefly when you want to shrink your pupils back down. Now, how do you use this?

We all use little clues like pupil size as we interact with people. We are affected by people’s expressions and body language even when we haven’t yet learned to identify it. In other words - the person in front of you will unconsciously pick upon your enlarging pupils. They will unconsciously take this to mean that you like them,
and for many people, this will make them like you more. By enlarging your pupils at will, you can effectively establish rapport more quickly.

More Mind Reading Tricks

Listen. This is the easiest and most effective way to read minds. Just pay attention, ask a few questions and listen to what they say about themselves.

Watch the Posture. Leaning towards indicates that the person is interested and receptive.

Watch For Hair Play. When women play with their hair while talking to you, it is almost always a sign of receptivity.

Watch the Mouth. A slightly open mouth is a sign of curiosity and interest.

Watch the Head. A tilting head, especially if it comes with a smile and eye contact, is a sign that the person likes you.

Watch the Eyes. By watching what a they are watching, you can learn a lot. What kind of women does a man look at? Does he pay any attention to the game on the TV? Note whether he seems bored or interested as he looks at different things.

Watch the Eyes - Part Two. Here is what people’s minds are doing when they are thinking or asked to remember something. This is true for most right handed people (reverse all this for left-handed people): As you face them, and their eyes go…
Up and to the right - they are remembering a visual image.
Up and to the left - They are constructing a visual image.
To the right - They are remembering sounds or conversation.
To the left - The are constructing sounds or conversations.
Down and to the right - They are in an internal dialog.
Down and to the left - They are accessing kinesthetic feelings, tastes and smells.

More Ways To Influence The Opposite Sex

Use His or Her Name. Try to use a persons name as soon as it feels right. If you aren’t sure when it’s right, ask them. “Is it all right if I call you Sue?”

Use Inflection. Remember from the previous chapter that the meaning in a sentence like “I think you are the best dancer here,” depends on the word you emphasize. This subtle use of inflection can be used to convey “hidden” messages. Saying to an insecure woman “I think you are the best dancer here,” could be unconsciously taken as defending her honor, since it implies that other’s might not think she is.

Use Mirroring and Matching. Match the speed of your speech to that of the person you’re talking to. Sit like he or she is sitting. Use the words they use. This is a fast way to build rapport. Once there is a “bond” built, you can start to lead the conversation and actions where you want them to go.

Compliment Her or Him. Discover what the person is proud of first, then find a genuine way to compliment them in that area.

Listen. Always show a genuine interest in what the person is saying. Ask appropriate questions, so the person knows you’re paying attention. Use their interests to lead into a direction you want to go.

Make Good First Impressions. Men usually form a quick visual impression in less than 20 seconds, and then make another judgment based on appearance and personality within a couple minutes. Women usually place less immediate emphasis on appearance, and form an “intuitive” first impression in a couple minutes. The
lesson? Work fast.

By Steve Gillman
Excerpt from “A Book of Secrets”